where religion and politics meet

Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is what one believes about life: what is true, what is false, what is right, what is wrong, what are the rules, are there any rules, what is the meaning of life, what is important, what is not.

If a worldview includes a god/God, it is called a religion. If a bunch of people have the same religion, they give it a name.

Countries also have a worldview, a way of looking at life that directs government policies and laws and that contributes significantly to the culture. Ours used to be Christianity. Now it is secularism, which is practical atheism.

Some of us are trying to engage the government, the culture, and the people who live here to see life again from a Christian perspective and to show how secularism is both inadequate and just plain wrong.

A religion is not a culture, though it creates one. It is not what you prefer, like your taste in music or your favorite movie. It is what you believe to be true. Because it deals with things like God, much of its contents is not subject to the scientific method, but the reasons why one chooses to believe in God or a particular religion certainly demand serious investigation and critical thinking.

Every human being has the duty to search for and learn the truth about life. Education and science used to be valuable tools in this search, but science has chosen to answer the foundational questions without accepting the possibility of any supernatural causes, and education no longer considers the search to be necessary or worthwhile.

poligion: 1) the proper synthesis of religion and politics 2) the realization, belief, or position that politics and religion cannot be separated or compartmentalized, that a person’s religion invariably affects one’s political decisions and that political decisions invariably stem from one’s worldview, which is what a religion is.

If you are new to this site, I would encourage you to browse through the older articles. They deal with a lot of the more basic issues,

For now I want to focus my writing now articles specifically addressed to Christians. So most of my new posts will be on my other website listed below. I will continue to write and post short responses to newspaper columns and letters and even other articles as the inspiration hits me.

Visit my other websites theimportanceofhealing blogspot.com where I talk about healing and my book of the same name and LarrysBibleStudies.blogspot.com where I am posting all my other Bible studies. Follow this link to my videos on youtube:


If you want to contact me, email is best: lacraig1@sbcglobal.net

Thank you.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Science and religion

Science and religion
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Chicago Sun-Times
Letter to the Editor


A recent writer to the Sun-Times, responding to a newspaper article noting that governor candidate Bill Brady believes that creationism could be taught in public schools, wondered why it is so difficult for some people to understand why evolution should be taught in schools and creationism should not.  Let me explain why it is hard for me.

The writer posits a dichotomy between religion and science.  This is not quite true.  A religion is essentially a worldview, a systematic description of the nature of reality.  Modern science purports to do the same thing..

The difference between religion and science is that religion believes that there has to be a god to explain the existence of nature and the nature of existence.  Modern science has chosen to believe that everything can and must be explained by natural causes, which, of course, is a non-provable assertion.  This is what is called ‘a leap of faith,’ when you act on something beyond what you are able to prove, the very reason why religion is so often considered subjective, arbitrary, and not worthy of educated minds.

Science is more than just a body of knowledge based on provable experiments.  It has expanded its presumed area of expertise to encompass all of reality.  Science is very good at things like observing, measuring, and calculating repeatable events, whether in a test tube or in outer space.  It exceeds its proper limits and authority when it tries to explain non-repeatable, non-observable, unique events at the beginning of time or in the indefinite past and when it insists that random events given enough time can account for all of nature and life as we know it; when it insists that intelligence can and does arise from non-intelligence; that order can come out of chaos, by itself, and that irreducible complexity is just another event in the ho-hum day at the evolutionary office.

The term ‘Creationism’ is often used to describe a complete system of beliefs about the origin of the universe and human life, but strictly speaking it is just the acknowledgement that intelligence must come from intelligence, and that believing in a God who created all this makes a lot more sense than believing the universe is just the result of random chaos that acted contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry to form the world as we know it.  Creationism in this case is merely saying that:”in the beginning, God created.”

To assert that God didn’t create the world, that there is no need for God to explain the origins of life and matter, becomes in the end just as much an assertion about God as any religion.   So in seeking to separate science and religion, it has essentially created its own religion.  You can call it naturalism

Education is about learning the truth.  You can’t learn the truth if you automatically exclude relevant information from the discussion.

Thank you.

Larry Craig

No comments:

Post a Comment